Rescue medication use as a patient-reported outcome in COPD: a systematic review and regression analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Reducing rescue medication use is a guideline-defined goal of asthma treatment, however, little is known about the validity of rescue medicine use as a marker of symptoms in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). To improve patient outcomes, greater insight is needed into the relationship between rescue medication use and alternative COPD outcomes.Methods
A systematic search of electronic databases (Embase®, MEDLINE® and Cochrane CENTRAL) was conducted from database start to 26 May, 2015. Studies of bronchodilator therapy with a duration of ≥24 weeks were included if they reported either mean change from baseline (CFB) in rescue medication use in puffs/day or % rescue-free days (%RFD), and at least one other COPD endpoint. Correlation and meta-regression analyses were undertaken to test the association between rescue medication use and other COPD outcomes using weighted means (weights proportional to the sample size of the treatment group) and unweighted means (equal weight for each treatment group). Each association was assessed at 6 months and study end.Results
Forty-six studies involving 46,531 patients provided mean data from 145 treatment groups for evaluation. Changes in both measures of rescue medication use were correlated with changes in trough forced expiratory volume in one second ([FEV1]; Pearson correlation coefficients |r| ≥ 0.63; p < 0.0001) and with St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score (|r| ≥ 0.70; p < 0.0001) at study end. Change in rescue medication use in puffs/day during the study correlated with annualized rates of moderate/severe exacerbations at 6 months and study end (both r = 0.66; p ≤ 0.0028). CFB in puffs/day was not well correlated with Transition Dyspnoea Index (TDI), but %RFD did correlate with TDI score at 6 months and study end (both r = 0.69; p < 0.0001). The values for CFB in puffs/day corresponding to the proposed minimal clinically important differences for trough FEV1 and SGRQ score were -1.3 and -0.6 puffs/day, respectively. A -1.0 puffs/day CFB in rescue use corresponded to a change of 0.26 events/patient-year in moderate/severe exacerbations.Conclusion
This analysis provides clear evidence of associations at a patient group level between rescue medication use and other clinically important COPD outcomes.
SUBMITTER: Punekar YS
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5422957 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundMedication adherence is essential for improving the health outcomes of patients. Various patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been developed to measure medication adherence in patients. However, no study has summarized the psychometric properties of these PROMs to guide selection for use in clinical practice or research.ObjectiveThis study aims to evaluate the quality of the PROMs used to measure medication adherence.MethodsThis study was guided by the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis) guidelines. Relevant articles were retrieved from the EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) databases. The PROMs were then evaluated based on the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines.ResultsA total of 121 unique medication adherence PROMs from 214 studies were identified. Hypotheses testing for construct validity and internal consistency were the most frequently assessed measurement properties. PROMs with at least a moderate level of evidence for ≥5 measurement properties include the Adherence Starts with Knowledge 20, Compliance Questionnaire-Rheumatology, General Medication Adherence Scale, Hill-Bone Scale, Immunosuppressant Therapy Barrier Scale, Medication Adherence Reasons Scale (MAR-Scale) revised, 5-item Medication Adherence Rating Scale (MARS-5), 9-item MARS (MARS-9), 4-item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS-4), 8-item MMAS (MMAS-8), Self-efficacy for Appropriate Medication Adherence Scale, Satisfaction with Iron Chelation Therapy, Test of Adherence to Inhalers, and questionnaire by Voils. The MAR-Scale revised, MMAS-4, and MMAS-8 have been administered electronically.ConclusionsThis study identified 121 PROMs for medication adherence and provided synthesized evidence for the measurement properties of these PROMs. The findings from this study may assist clinicians and researchers in selecting suitable PROMs to assess medication adherence.
| S-EPMC7584986 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposePharmacotherapy is one cornerstone of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) management. Published U.S. data seldom includes patient-reported COPD medication use and adherence. We add this patient perspective to the commonly reported administrative prescribing and fill data.MethodsThis survey study used inhaler and nebulizer pictures and lists of oral COPD medications to query members of the COPD Foundation Patient-Powered Research Network, a national self-reported online registry. Medications used, adherence, inhaler education, cost concerns, previous exacerbations, and COPD Assessment Test scores were assessed and summarized using simple descriptive statistics and hazard ratios controlling for age, gender, and disease burden.ResultsRespondents mean age was 68 years, 60% were women, >69% with the COPD Assessment Test (CAT) scores >15, and >50% reported 2 or more exacerbations in the past 12 months. Overall, >98% used one or more inhaled COPD medications, 7.6% rescue inhaler only, 17.8% used long-acting bronchodilator only therapy (11.1% dual), and 72.8% using corticosteroid therapies, including 53% triple therapy. Nebulizers were used by 59.4% and 34.8% use oral COPD medications. Reported adherence rates were high (80.1%), but 41% reported trouble paying for medications, with 20.1% reported missing medications due to cost.ConclusionsIn this population, COPD had a high burden with >50% of respondents using triple therapy, and one in eight maintenance oral corticosteroids. Self-reported adherence was high, but with significant cost concerns reported resulting in missed medications.
| S-EPMC8686845 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMost antithrombotic medication users are older adults. Patient-reported outcome measures are commonly used in clinical research on antithrombotic medication, such as the diagnosis of intracranial hemorrhage.ObjectivesTo determine the reliability of patient-reported intracranial hemorrhage, anticoagulant and platelet aggregation inhibitor use in the older adult population.Patients/methodsWe conducted a secondary analysis of a prospective, observational cohort study of older adults who presented to the emergency department with a fall. The primary outcome was diagnosis of intracranial bleeding. We compared patient-reported intracranial bleeding to structured chart review with adjudication. We also compared patient-reported use of antiplatelet and anticoagulant medication to physician-reported medication use supplemented with structured chart review. We calculated the diagnostic accuracy of the patient-reported outcomes using our comparators as the reference standard.ResultsExact agreement for patient-reported intracranial bleeds was 95%, with a Cohen's kappa of 0.30 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15-0.45). The sensitivity was 36.7% (95% CI, 20.6%-56.1%) and specificity 97.2% (95% CI, 95.8%-98.1%). For anticoagulant medication use, exact agreement was 87%, Cohen's kappa 0.66 (95% CI, 0.63-0.72), sensitivity 84.0% (95% CI, 79.3%-83.8%), and specificity 87.6% (95% CI, 85.1%-89.7%). For antiplatelet medication use, exact agreement was 77%, Cohen's kappa 0.50 (95% CI, 0.44-0.55), sensitivity 68.7% (95% CI, 64.0%-73.1%), and specificity 81.2% (95% CI, 78.0-83.8%).ConclusionsPatient-reported outcome and exposure data were unreliable in this study. Our findings have a bearing on future research study design.
| S-EPMC8117814 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWith the rise of digital health technologies and telemedicine, the need for evidence-based evaluation is growing. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) are recommended as an essential part of the evaluation of telemedicine. For the first time, a systematic review has been conducted to investigate the use of PROMs and PREMs in the evaluation studies of telemedicine covering all application types and medical purposes.ObjectiveThis study investigates the following research questions: in which scenarios are PROMs and PREMs collected for evaluation purposes, which PROM and PREM outcome domains have been covered and how often, which outcome measurement instruments have been used and how often, does the selection and quantity of PROMs and PREMs differ between study types and application types, and has the use of PROMs and PREMs changed over time.MethodsWe conducted a systematic literature search of the MEDLINE and Embase databases and included studies published from inception until April 2, 2020. We included studies evaluating telemedicine with patients as the main users; these studies reported PROMs and PREMs within randomized controlled trials, controlled trials, noncontrolled trials, and feasibility trials in English and German.ResultsOf the identified 2671 studies, 303 (11.34%) were included; of the 303 studies, 67 (22.1%) were feasibility studies, 70 (23.1%) were noncontrolled trials, 20 (6.6%) were controlled trials, and 146 (48.2%) were randomized controlled trials. Health-related quality of life (n=310; mean 1.02, SD 1.05), emotional function (n=244; mean 0.81, SD 1.18), and adherence (n=103; mean 0.34, SD 0.53) were the most frequently assessed outcome domains. Self-developed PROMs were used in 21.4% (65/303) of the studies, and self-developed PREMs were used in 22.3% (68/303). PROMs (n=884) were assessed more frequently than PREMs (n=234). As the evidence level of the studies increased, the number of PROMs also increased (τ=-0.45), and the number of PREMs decreased (τ=0.35). Since 2000, not only has the number of studies using PROMs and PREMs increased, but the level of evidence and the number of outcome measurement instruments used have also increased, with the number of PREMs permanently remaining at a lower level.ConclusionsThere have been increasingly more studies, particularly high-evidence studies, which use PROMs and PREMs to evaluate telemedicine. PROMs have been used more frequently than PREMs. With the increasing maturity stage of telemedicine applications and higher evidence level, the use of PROMs increased in line with the recommendations of evaluation guidelines. Health-related quality of life and emotional function were measured in almost all the studies. Simultaneously, health literacy as a precondition for using the application adequately, alongside proper training and guidance, has rarely been reported. Further efforts should be pursued to standardize PROM and PREM collection in evaluation studies of telemedicine.
| S-EPMC8663685 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceOutpatient postpartum recovery is an underexplored area of obstetrics. There is currently no consensus regarding which patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) clinicians and researchers should use to evaluate postpartum recovery.ObjectiveTo evaluate PROMs of outpatient postpartum recovery using Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines.Evidence reviewAn initial literature search performed in July 2019 identified postpartum recovery PROMs and validation studies. A secondary search in July 2020 identified additional validation studies. Both searches were performed using 4 databases (Web of Science, Embase, PubMed, and CINAHL), with no date limiters. Studies with PROMs evaluating more than 3 proposed outpatient postpartum recovery domains were considered. Studies were included if they assessed any psychometric measurement property of the included PROMs in the outpatient postpartum setting. The PROMs were assessed for the following 8 psychometric measurement properties, as defined by COSMIN: content validity, structural validity, internal consistency, cross-cultural validity and measurement invariance, reliability, measurement error, hypothesis testing, and responsiveness. Psychometric measurement properties were evaluated in each included study using the COSMIN criteria by assessing (1) the quality of the methods (very good, adequate, doubtful, inadequate, or not assessed); (2) overall rating of results (sufficient, insufficient, inconsistent, or indeterminate); (3) level of evidence assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations assessment tool; and (4) level of recommendation, which included class A (recommended for use; showed adequate content validity with at least low-quality evidence for sufficient internal consistency), class B (not class A or class C), or class C (not recommended).FindingsIn total, 15 PROMs (7 obstetric specific and 8 non-obstetric specific) were identified, evaluating outpatient postpartum recovery in 46 studies involving 19 165 women. The majority of psychometric measurement properties of the included PROMs were graded as having very-low-level or low-level evidence. The best-performing PROMs that received class A recommendations were the Maternal Concerns Questionnaire, the Postpartum Quality of Life tool, and the World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF. The remainder of the evaluated PROMs had insufficient evidence to make recommendations regarding their use (and received class B recommendations).Conclusions and relevanceThis review found that the best-performing PROMs currently available to evaluate outpatient postpartum recovery were the Maternal Concerns Questionnaire, the Postpartum Quality of Life tool, and the World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF; however, these tools all had significant limitations. This study highlights the need to focus future efforts on robustly developing and validating a new PROM that may comprehensively evaluate outpatient postpartum recovery.
| S-EPMC8160591 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and objectiveSeveral medication adherence patient-reported outcome measures (MA-PROMs) are available for use in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD); however, little evidence is available on the most suitable MA-PROM to measure medication adherence in patients with CVD. The aim of this systematic review is to synthesise the measurement properties of MA-PROMs for patients with CVD and identify the most suitable MA-PROM for use in clinical practice or future research in patients with CVD.MethodsAn electronic search of nine databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, ProQuest Health and Medicine, Cochrane Library, PsychInfo, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science) was conducted to identify studies that have reported on at least one of the measurement properties of MA-PROMs in patients with CVD. The methodological quality of the studies included in the systematic review was evaluated using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist.ResultsA total of 40 MA-PROMs were identified in the 84 included studies. This review found there is a lack of moderate-to-high quality evidence of sufficient content validity for all MA-PROMs for patients with CVDs. Only eight MA-PROMs were classified in COSMIN recommendation category A. They exhibited sufficient content validity with very low-quality evidence, and moderate-to-high quality evidence for sufficient internal consistency. The 28 MA-PROMs that meet the requirements for COSMIN recommendation category 'B' require further validation studies. Four MA-PROMs including Hill-Bone Compliance Medication Scale (HBMS), the five-item Medication Adherence Report Scale (MARS-5), Maastricht Utrecht Adherence in Hypertension (MUAH), and MUAH-16 have insufficient results with high quality evidence for at least one measurement property and consequently are not recommended for use in patients with CVD. Two MA-PROMs (Adherence to Refills and Medications Scale [ARMS] and ARMS-7) are comprehensive and have moderate to high quality evidence for four sufficient measurement properties.ConclusionFrom the eight MA-PROMs in COSMIN recommendation category A, ARMS and ARMS-7 were selected as the most suitable MA-PROMs for use in patients with CVD. They are the most comprehensive with be best quality evidence to support their use in clinical practice and research.
| S-EPMC9617955 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are measures of the outcome of treatment(s) reported directly by the patient or carer. There is increasing international policy interest in using these to assess the impact of clinical care.AimsTo identify suitably validated PROMs for asthma and examine their potential for use in clinical settings.MethodsWe systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science databases from 1990 onwards to identify PROMs for asthma. These were critically appraised, then narratively synthesised. We also identified the generic PROMs commonly used alongside asthma-specific PROMs.ResultsWe identified 68 PROMs for asthma, 13 of which were selected through screening as being adequately developed to warrant full-quality appraisal: 8 for adults, 4 for children and 1 for a child's caregiver. The PROMs found to be sufficiently well validated to offer promise for use in clinical settings were the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) and mini-AQLQ for adults, and Pediatric Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire for children. Rhinasthma was considered promising in simultaneously assessing the impact of asthma and rhinitis in those with coexistent disease. We identified 28 generic PROMs commonly used in conjunction with asthma-specific instruments.ConclusionsWe identified asthma PROMs that offer the greatest potential for use in clinical settings. Further work is needed to assess whether these are fit-for-purpose for use in clinical practice with individual patients. In particular, there is a need to ensure these are validated for use in clinical settings, acceptable to patients, caregivers and clinicians, and yield meaningful outcomes.
| S-EPMC4373322 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeInformal caregivers provide invaluable help and support to people with cancer. As treatments extend survival and the potential burdens on carers increase, there is a need to assess the impact of the role. This systematic review identified instruments that measure the impact of caregiving, evaluated their psychometric performance specifically in cancer and appraised the content.MethodsA two-stage search strategy was employed to: (1) identify instruments that measure the impact of caregiving, and (2) run individual searches on each measure to identify publications evaluating psychometric performance in the target population. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO and restricted to English for instrument used and article language. Psychometric performance was evaluated for content and construct validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, precision, responsiveness and acceptability. Individual scale items were extracted and systematically categorised into conceptual domains.ResultsTen papers were included reporting on the psychometric properties of eight measures. Although construct validity and internal consistency were most frequently evaluated, no study comprehensively evaluated all relevant properties. Few studies met our inclusion criteria so it was not possible to consider the psychometric performance of the measures across a group of studies. Content analysis resulted in 16 domains with 5 overarching themes: lifestyle disruption; well-being; health of the caregiver; managing the situation and relationships.ConclusionsFew measures of caregiver impact have been subject to psychometric evaluation in cancer caregivers. Those that have do not capture well changes in roles and responsibilities within the family and career, indicating the need for a new instrument.
| S-EPMC4945691 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This review article systematically reviews the use of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in Vitreoretinal surgery, with the aim of recommending a preferred PROM-tool for use in clinical practice. Vitreoretinal surgery lags behind other ophthalmic subspecialties in the adoption of PROMs as a core outcome measure of success post-operatively. Current outcomes rely heavily on post-operative Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) and anatomical success on imaging modalities such as Ocular Coherence Tomography (OCT), despite the link between each of these measures and patient satisfaction being uncertain. We systematically reviewed the available literature in March 2021, in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, searching six databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, APA PsycINFO, SCOPUS and Cochrane Library. Critical appraisal of PROM-tools was facilitated using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) risk of bias checklist. We identified 14 eligible original research papers that used PROMs as a primary or secondary outcome of success post-operatively in patients having undergone vitreoretinal surgery. Eight different generic and vision-related PROM-tools were identified as being used in vitreoretinal studies, none of which were vitreoretinal-disease-specific. Our review article considers whether generic-health PROMs (e.g., EQ5D) or vision-related PROMs (e.g. NEI VFQ-25) are precise or responsive enough following vitreoretinal surgery to have a meaningful impact on clinical or research practice. We also consider the importance of standardisation of clinical outcomes in vitreoretinal clinical trials.
| S-EPMC9905525 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe management of diabetes is complex. There is growing recognition of the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) as a standardized method of obtaining an outlook on patients' functional status and well-being. However, no systematic reviews have summarized the studies that investigate the measurement properties of diabetes PROMs.ObjectiveOur aims were to conduct a systematic review of studies investigating the measurement properties of diabetes PROMs by evaluating the methodological quality and overall level of evidence of these PROMs and to categorize them based on the outcome measures assessed.MethodsThis study was guided by the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis) guidelines. Relevant articles were retrieved from the Embase, PubMed, and PsychINFO databases. The PROMs were evaluated with the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments) guidelines.ResultsA total of 363 articles evaluating the measurement properties of PROMs for diabetes in the adult population were identified, of which 238 unique PROMs from 248 studies reported in 209 articles were validated in the type 2 diabetes population. PROMs with at least a moderate level of evidence for ≥5 of 9 measurement properties include the Chinese version of the Personal Diabetes Questionnaire (C-PDQ), Diabetes Self-Management Instrument Short Form (DSMI-20), and Insulin Treatment Appraisal Scale in Hong Kong primary care patients (C-ITAS-HK), of which the C-PDQ has a "sufficient (+)" rating for >4 measurement properties. A total of 43 PROMs meet the COSMIN guidelines for recommendation for use.ConclusionsThis study identified and synthesized evidence for the measurement properties of 238 unique PROMs for patients with type 2 diabetes and categorized the PROMs according to their outcome measures. These findings may assist clinicians and researchers in selecting appropriate high-quality PROMs for clinical practice and research.Trial registrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42020180978; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020180978.
| S-EPMC8398743 | biostudies-literature